What role for a truth commission in Colombia?

While a positive step in negotiations between warring parties, what are the limits of uncovering the dark truths of Colombia's conflict?

Camilo Aldana Sanín/ICTJ. All rights reserved.

Over the years, there have been numerous attempts to
end Colombia’s decades-long conflict, an armed struggle marked by widespread suffering
and soaring numbers of human loss. The peace talks between the Government and
the FARC-EP—negotiations that began two years ago–have made significant progress
in the face of innumerable difficulties, and now appear to be the best opportunity
for Colombia to reach sustainable peace.

Now, the negotiating parties, in concert with the
whole country, are discussing the different approaches to and possibilities for
a transition based on victims’ rights to justice, reparation, and truth. It is a timely occasion to mention the necessity of
such a principled ground for transition as the Colombian government and FARC announced yesterday the creation of a truth commission, though only once a final peace treaty has been signed.

Before the details are finalized, however, all those around
the negotiating table must clearly understand what they expect a truth commission to achieve: A truth commission should
not be adopted mechanically, nor considered only as a policy obligation. Nor
should it be conceived as an omnipotent institution or replicated blindly
because of the fascination with the mechanism itself and the accompanying myths.
The parties need to know what they really want to achieve–this requires not
only a deep reflection and understanding of what commissions can realistically
accomplish, but also to hear and understand the expectations of Colombian
society.

The
predominant assumption in Colombia is that a truth commission would examine a
long period of serious and mass human rights violations, in addition to the underlying
structural causes of the conflict. Another common expectation is that a truth
commission would carefully examine each and every crime that has been committed
during the conflict.

Given experiences
of other countries, such expectations would be highly unrealistic: even in
truth commissions with broad and ambitious mandates, the clarification of each
incident is impossible, especially from the perspective of forensic truth. It
is important to reiterate, as many times as needed, that a truth commission
does not substitute a judicial process, cannot clarify everything that has not
been addressed in courtroom, and is not designed to let perpetrators off the
hook. A truth commission should not be conceived with the logic of a judicial
processes–failure to comprehend the difference could mean jeopardizing the
process itself.

What a truth
commission can do is make a
fundamental contribution to stable and lasting peace by recognizing the victims’
experiences and sorrow. Indeed, the
quest for truth is also a quest for justice: recognition that wrongdoings
suffered by victims are a matter of national, social, and institutional concern;
acknowledgment that their needs and demands for justice and reparations must be
addressed; and genuine commitment to take all necessary measures and to
implement all required changes, to prevent repetition of crimes.

The
benefits of offering this official recognition are apparent; chief among these
is the sense of recovered dignity of victims and affected communities, and the
restoration of their capacity to control their own lives. In this regard, truth
can also strengthen communities and individuals’ sense of citizenship, as people
become aware of their rights and their status as citizens and it helps to
restore the relationships between citizens and state.

But truth
commissions are not just about victims. The process led by a truth commission
is a unique opportunity for a social debate about what is known but not yet
accepted, about what is still unknown and about the roles of institutional,
political and social actors that need to surface after decades of denial. Many
times, truth commissions meet indifference or incomprehension, from both the
public and government. To facilitate a collective process of acknowledgement, a
successful truth commission must manage to engage sectors of society that have disengaged
in the process, even those who oppose truth-seeking measures, or who have in
some way participated in or profited from the conflict.

Although
many truth commissions started their work expecting their ultimate contribution
to be a final report and a repository of written testimonies, they soon
discovered that what society and different social groups are really asking for
is a process where interaction, participation, and open discussion are as
important as the findings. This would unmistakably apply in Colombia where
numerous collective projects–as well as a vast diverse of social and political
identities–have already emerged, and several initiatives have even asked collectively
for such a participatory process. Indeed,
a truth commission should be considered as a process, not as a single event. A
truth commission in Colombia could build upon previous efforts, and likewise
act as a bridge to future projects of truth-seeking.

The selection of truth commissioners is also crucial for the success of a
commission. Leadership is as vital as public participation, and demographic
representation will not necessarily guarantee the suitability and legitimacy of
commissioners: the selection and designation of commissioners must be inspired
and guided by criteria of integrity and independence. The truth commission does not need to be a
mini-parliament or an assembly of delegates from different sectors. It should
gather elected people deeply committed to human rights and the truth commission’s
mandate, able to inspire and lead such a complex and difficult process.

In Colombia, significant progress has already been
made toward clarifying the truth and constructing historical memory, thanks to
judicial processes like the Justice and Peace Process, the work of the
Historical Memory Group and the National Center for Historic Memory, unofficial
civil society initiatives around the country, and the findings of prior
official truth commissions that concentrated on specific issues or periods of
the conflict. However, there is still great demand in the country for knowledge
and recognition of the truth about the armed conflict.

An effective
truth process in Colombia will have the potential to nurture a more inclusive
and stable democracy by reflecting the diverse cultural, gender-based,
political, and religious identities represented in society, and by bringing this
diversity to public consciousness through a spectrum of testimonies.

Bringing
victims’ voices to the public realm and integrating their experiences into
society’s collective knowledge improves our conversation with others and with
ourselves. That conversation, made of meaningful words, is the fabric of
democracies. It’s also the solid base upon which a peaceful coexistence among
all Colombians can flourish.

About the authors

Fernando Travesí is Deputy Program Director at the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ).

Félix Reátegui is a Senior Associate with ICTJ’s Truth and Memory Program.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.

Security for the future: in search of a new vision

What does ‘security’ mean to you? The Ammerdown Invitation seeks your participation in a new civic conversation about national security in the UK and beyond. Its authors offer an analysis of the shortcomings of current approaches and propose a different vision of the future. Please use the invitation summary document for seminars, workshops and public meetings, and share the responses and insights that emerge.

Recent comments

openDemocracy is an independent, non-profit global media outlet, covering world affairs, ideas and culture, which seeks to challenge power and encourage democratic debate across the world. We publish high-quality investigative reporting and analysis; we train and mentor journalists and wider civil society; we publish in Russian, Arabic, Spanish and Portuguese and English.